Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
No. 16

Personal Finance Advice and Education!

Recommended Posts

Ok, so just curious.  If you dont mind, what would a permanent life policy cost for a healthy 65yo female?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Random said:

Ok, so just curious.  If you dont mind, what would a permanent life policy cost for a healthy 65yo female?

Depends on quite a few factors.  I just ran a very, very basic and fast quote.  At best health, 65 year old woman could get 200k for 4,577 a year.  That could be more than they need/want; or not enough.

The idea is that she could take the full 1,784 a month (21,408/yr) and pay 4,577 a year in her life policy.  She'd then net 16,831 a year (again, likely growing with inflation, but the 3% kicker would be based on the full 1,784 a month starting value, not some already reduced amount).  Then if anything happened to her, your father would get a tax free (the lump sum option they have now wouldn't be tax free, but life insurance is) lump sum of $200k to do with as he pleases.  I choose that amount, as it's roughly the equivalent of 7 or 8 years taxable survivorship had they picked a full survivorship benefit from her pension (with a few assumptions I'm making).

The other benefit that's typically overlooked - lets say your mom takes the survivorship benefit from the pension and has a 20% reduction of her pension to guarantee a promise to your dad if anything happened to her.  Lets they say she lives 20 years - that's over $115k of reduction in her pension at that point.  Lets say that year your father (the survivor in her survivorship benefit) passes away.  She will very likely never get back that $115k of lost pension she's had over the prior 20 years.  That's simply money lost.  If the same thing happened with the life insurance, she could just change the beneficiary to you and your siblings (if you had any) or anyone else she likes.  Or she could just cash the policy in (there would be about $93k of cash value in the policy at that point).  Lots of options with the life policy, not so much with the survivorship benefit. 

ETA - The whole life would have worked best had she bought it instead of term 10-20 years ago or so.  It may still very much work well for her here, but the best way to use permanent life to maximize a pension would be to have the life premiums either end, or greatly reduce when you hit retirement - not start when you hit retirement.  With my very rudimentary quote above, she'd be spending ~21% of her pre-tax pension (possibly a quarter of her net pension) on life coverage.  That could be a very tough pill to swallow.

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Depends on quite a few factors.  I just ran a very, very basic and fast quote.  At best health, 65 year old woman could get 200k for 4,577 a year.  That could be more than they need/want; or not enough.

The idea is that she could take the full 1,784 a month (21,408/yr) and pay 4,577 a year in her life policy.  She'd then net 16,831 a year (again, likely growing with inflation, but the 3% kicker would be based on the full 1,784 a month starting value, not some already reduced amount).  Then if anything happened to her, your father would get a tax free (the lump sum option they have now wouldn't be tax free, but life insurance is) lump sum of $200k to do with as he pleases.  I choose that amount, as it's roughly the equivalent of 7 or 8 years taxable survivorship had they picked a full survivorship benefit from her pension (with a few assumptions I'm making).

The other benefit that's typically overlooked - lets say your mom takes the survivorship benefit from the pension and has a 20% reduction of her pension to guarantee a promise to your dad if anything happened to her.  Lets they say she lives 20 years - that's over $115k of reduction in her pension at that point.  Lets say that year your father (the survivor in her survivorship benefit) passes away.  She will very likely never get back that $115k of lost pension she's had over the prior 20 years.  That's simply money lost.  If the same thing happened with the life insurance, she could just change the beneficiary to you and your siblings (if you had any) or anyone else she likes.  Or she could just cash the policy in (there would be about $93k of cash value in the policy at that point).  Lots of options with the life policy, not so much with the survivorship benefit. 

ETA - The whole life would have worked best had she bought it instead of term 10-20 years ago or so.  It may still very much work well for her here, but the best way to use permanent life to maximize a pension would be to have the life premiums either end, or greatly reduce when you hit retirement - not start when you hit retirement.  With my very rudimentary quote above, she'd be spending ~21% of her pre-tax pension (possibly a quarter of her net pension) on life coverage.  That could be a very tough pill to swallow.

Cool, thanks for this.  Right now we are still in the information gathering phase, so this is good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Random said:

Cool, thanks for this.  Right now we are still in the information gathering phase, so this is good to know.

No problem.  If there is one thing I can tell you/them - if you're going to pick the lump sum from them, or take the reduced amount/survivorhip benefit from them - be 110% sure that is exactly what they want to do, as they most likely won't be able to undo those choices later if they change their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2015 at 3:57 PM, Random said:

My mother just informed me she is retiring next year. She asked what I thought she should do with her pension (factory worker at Honda). Her options are 1784/mo (and some other options for a beneficiary) for lifetime or 285K payout. Is there a clear winner in this situation? What else needs to be considered? What are the tax implications for each scenario?

She will be 65 and is in good health. Her mother is 86.

They have no debt and decent savings.

Recent conversation with them indicates they are now leaning to keeping the pension (monthly payouts).  I could not be happier about this decision.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Random said:

Recent conversation with them indicates they are now leaning to keeping the pension (monthly payouts).  I could not be happier about this decision.  

Which is great.  Are they going to accept any survivorship benefit?  Just the "straight pension" means that all payments stop if your mother were to pass away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Which is great.  Are they going to accept any survivorship benefit?  Just the "straight pension" means that all payments stop if your mother were to pass away. 

They haven't decided that yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Random said:

They haven't decided that yet.  

They may want to as soon as possible.  Most spouses don't want their pension receiving spouse to not have some type of survivorship (unless there is a life policy in place).  His retirement plan, should she no longer be around, likely includes some part of that pension.  If they do that, all she's effectively done is purchased a rather expensive life insurance policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, matttyl said:

They may want to as soon as possible.  Most spouses don't want their pension receiving spouse to not have some type of survivorship (unless there is a life policy in place).  His retirement plan, should she no longer be around, likely includes some part of that pension.  If they do that, all she's effectively done is purchased a rather expensive life insurance policy.

Aside from paying off the house and deciding to retire, I'm not sure either has much of a retirement "plan".  Good news is with a little budgeting they should each individually be able to comfortably live without the others benefits.  My next project is to try to get a budget in place showing them this.  From there they can decide between life insurance, survivor pension benefits, or neither.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Random said:

Recent conversation with them indicates they are now leaning to keeping the pension (monthly payouts).  I could not be happier about this decision.  

It seems like these situations are always either one or the other.  Do any companies off some sort of split?  In this case maybe something like $1,000 monthly with an immediate lump sum of 100 grand or whatever it would come out to be?

I am not sure how the survivorship works.  I will have to look that up, though if someone gave me the basics on that I would appreciate it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

It seems like these situations are always either one or the other.  Do any companies off some sort of split?  In this case maybe something like $1,000 monthly with an immediate lump sum of 100 grand or whatever it would come out to be?

I am not sure how the survivorship works.  I will have to look that up, though if someone gave me the basics on that I would appreciate it.

Survivorship (as I understand it) she (retiree with pension) would basically accept reduced payments (from 1750 to 1550?) for 50%? of the benefits to continue after her death to her spouse until his death.  I dont have the exact numbers in front of me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

It seems like these situations are always either one or the other.  Do any companies off some sort of split?  In this case maybe something like $1,000 monthly with an immediate lump sum of 100 grand or whatever it would come out to be?

I am not sure how the survivorship works.  I will have to look that up, though if someone gave me the basics on that I would appreciate it.

 

Survivorship basically means the pensioner takes a reduced monthly amount, but if they pass before their spouse, the benefit continues for the spouse.

 

So, for example, if I were the one collecting the pension, I could either get something like $3,000 a month for my lifetime. If I die before my wife, she would not get anything additional, as payments stop at my death.

 

However, by taking the survivorship route, I would collect a payment of say $2,500 a month. If I die before my wife, she would continue to be paid $2,500 a month for her lifetime.

 

Obviously these numbers are made up to illustrate the point. I have seen some where there is a partial survivorship. For example, at my work, one can elect a 75% survivorship. The initial payment to the pensioner is higher, say $2,800 in the scenario above, but when I die, my wife's would then only get $2,100 a month for her lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

It seems like these situations are always either one or the other.  Do any companies off some sort of split?  In this case maybe something like $1,000 monthly with an immediate lump sum of 100 grand or whatever it would come out to be?

I am not sure how the survivorship works.  I will have to look that up, though if someone gave me the basics on that I would appreciate it.

You can sorta do the first one - you take the full lump sum, say $200k, and you put half (or whatever) into something called a SPIA (single premium immediate annuity) which would generate income for either a set period of time (say 10 or 20 years), or for someone's lifetime, or for two people's lifetime, with possibly other payout options as well.  The "rates" on these things are in the dumps right now because interest rates are so low.  If you put $100k into one at age 65 for example, you may need to live another 20 years just to hit a breakeven.

As for survivorhip - a real world example (I do a lot of these in my line of work).  Say you're 65 and retire with exactly a $2,000 per month pension.  Your wife is 63.  You can take the full pension of $2k a month for your remaining lifetime (which could be 1 year, it could be 40) and when that ends, so do the payments.  Or you could take a reduced amount - at those ages of 65 and 63, you could take 76.3% (what the reduction would be for state employees where I live, pretty standardized tables) which would be 1,526/m for your lifetime and if anything ever happened to you, your wife would continue to get 1,526/m for the rest of her life.  You could also do a 75% or 50% survivorshiop where your reduction wouldn't be as large, but any benefit paid to your survivor would be smaller.

What you've effectively done, though, in my above example is purchased a life insurance policy that cost $474/m, or ~5,700 a year (and growing with inflation).  It's also ONLY payable if that specific survivor that you claim outlives you.  If they live to 87, and you 90, you've reduced your pension by probably close to $150k over those 20 years and done absolutely nothing with it.

Edited by matttyl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2016 at 3:39 AM, metoo said:

Unless you already have an account with Vanguard, I would go with something like Fidelity just to make sure the account is funded by 4/18. Vanguard is slow. 

And Fidelity has local branches, so if you're close enough you can walk in with a checkbook and come out with a funded account.  I've dealt with both places and much prefer the online design and functionality that Fidelity has.  For me it was an easy choice, though Vanguard is the other (IMO) superb place to put money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sounds like surivorship is highly individualized then just based on the health of you and your spouse, age of your spouse (is she 25? is she 65?), family history, etc...........................

Good info, thanks.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of my own curiosity, is a survivorship pension benefit bound to just one spouse?

Hypothetically, if the pension-earning partner outlives his partner, but remarries after, does the benefit transfer to the second spouse?

 

Or is this different from plan to plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

Yeah, sounds like surivorship is highly individualized then just based on the health of you and your spouse, family history, etc...........................

Good info, thanks.

Yeah, if you've been given 2 years to live due to some health issue, you take the largest survivorship option available.  If the spouse has that situation, you take your full pension without any survivorship benefits selected.  I'm going on the assumption that both the retiree and their spouse have no reason to think they won't live long lives, and are relatively close in age at the time.  For most folks in that situation, a traditional life insurance policy would be the best way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Boot said:

Just out of my own curiosity, is a survivorship pension benefit bound to just one spouse?

Hypothetically, if the pension-earning partner outlives his partner, but remarries after, does the benefit transfer to the second spouse?

 

Or is this different from plan to plan?

Likely different from plan to plan.  Typically the original survivor is the only one you're allowed to have.  If they predecease you, you can go back to your full pension, but any reduction you've had is simply lost.

The reason you can't later take another survivor makes sense, though.  Say I'm 85 without a spouse and have a large pension.  I just found out I have stage 4 cancer.  What's stopping me from electing a survivorship option with some friend (same sex or otherwise, now)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Likely different from plan to plan.  Typically the original survivor is the only one you're allowed to have.  If they predecease you, you can go back to your full pension, but any reduction you've had is simply lost.

The reason you can't later take another survivor makes sense, though.  Say I'm 85 without a spouse and have a large pension.  I just found out I have stage 4 cancer.  What's stopping me from electing a survivorship option with some friend (same sex or otherwise, now)?

 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I remember the "civil war widows" who lived until the 2010s... when they were 18/19, stuck with a kid with no father in the picture in the 1930s, find some 90 year old guy born in the 1840s earning a civil war pension, get a paper marriage, and collect his benefit for the rest of their lives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Boot said:

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I remember the "civil war widows" who lived until the 2010s... when they were 18/19, stuck with a kid with no father in the picture in the 1930s, find some 90 year old guy born in the 1840s earning a civil war pension, get a paper marriage, and collect his benefit for the rest of their lives.

Some of those stories were fascinating.  Towards the end of the War, they didn't take attendance, and the South would take anyone willing.  I've heard stories were guys who said they found had to describe the battle to "prove" they were a part of it in order to get a pension. 

Anyway, just read some of the bylaws of the pension plans to state employees here.  It's very, very restrictive in your ability to change anything after your initial choices are made.  So much so that if your survivor wishes to give up their survivorship benefit (while you're both still alive), they have to prove good health.  That way if they get diagnosed with something terminal, you can't immediately go back to your full pension amount.  You would have to wait till they pass away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

Just out of my own curiosity, is a survivorship pension benefit bound to just one spouse?

Hypothetically, if the pension-earning partner outlives his partner, but remarries after, does the benefit transfer to the second spouse?

 

Or is this different from plan to plan?

I like the way this one thinks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, matttyl said:

They may want to as soon as possible.  Most spouses don't want their pension receiving spouse to not have some type of survivorship (unless there is a life policy in place).  His retirement plan, should she no longer be around, likely includes some part of that pension.  If they do that, all she's effectively done is purchased a rather expensive life insurance policy.

Ok, so thinking about all of this life ins stuff, I went looking for ours.  I was the one that had the 15/mo and my wifes is 10/mo.  Well, as it turns out, those were 10yr 150K term policies.  And they expire next year.  So my question is this.  At what point is life ins not necessary?  I mean, we have substantially more assets than we did 10 years ago, so getting another 150K policy seems prohibitive (I'm sure the cost is much more now @ 38/40 yrs old).  Though I do have about 2yrs salary through work (obviously thats only good as long as I'm there).

Is it ever a good (smart) choice to forego life insurance? 

Edited by Random

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Random said:

Ok, so thinking about all of this life ins stuff, I went looking for ours.  I was the one that had the 15/mo and my wifes is 10/mo.  Well, as it turns out, those were 10yr 150K term policies.  And they expire next year.  So my question is this.  At what point is life ins not necessary?  I mean, we have substantially more assets than we did 10 years ago, so getting another 150K policy seems prohibitive (I'm sure the cost is much more now @ 38/40 yrs old).  Though I do have about 2yrs salary through work (obviously thats only good as long as I'm there).

Is it ever a good (smart) choice to forego life insurance? 

IMO, as long as you have a mortgage and/or dependent children living at home, you will want some form of life insurance to cover those expenses should you die and your income is lost.

If you have no children still dependent on you, no mortgage/major debt and your loved ones could survive without your income (ie you have plenty of assets saved), then you likely do not need life insurance.

 

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread, but you are much more likely at this age to become disabled and unable to work, so it likely is more important to have adequate disability insurance, especially if you don't have coverage through your work. With life insurance, you have to die for your family to collect, if you are disabled and have no coverage, then it is a burden on your family to provide care for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Random said:

Ok, so thinking about all of this life ins stuff, I went looking for ours.  I was the one that had the 15/mo and my wifes is 10/mo.  Well, as it turns out, those were 10yr 150K term policies.  And they expire next year.  So my question is this.  At what point is life ins not necessary?  I mean, we have substantially more assets than we did 10 years ago, so getting another 150K policy seems prohibitive (I'm sure the cost is much more now @ 38/40 yrs old).  Though I do have about 2yrs salary through work (obviously thats only good as long as I'm there).

Is it ever a good (smart) choice to forego life insurance? 

Answered by someone else just above, but as long as someone is still dependent on your income, you'll still need (or want to have) coverage.  If you died today, how long could your wife continue her standard of living?  Any kids?  Are their colleges fully funded? 

So yeah, why do you think those policies were $15 or $10 a month?  They were only providing $150k, and only for 10 years, and for a couple who were likely healthy and 28 and 30 when they took them out.  I'd take that bet (assuming I could take a few hundred or thousand other similar bets to cover myself)!  Both of you make it to next year (which is extremely likely), that's $3k you'll never get back.  That may not seem like a whole lot of money, but what did it do for you?  And now you'll likely want to do it all again, and those policies will be even more expensive.

Also, if much of your "assets" are in retirement type funds, and you pass away at 38 (I'm assuming you're the 38 year old), and your wife is 40 - she'd be both taxed AND penalized to touch that money before age 59 1/2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Answered by someone else just above, but as long as someone is still dependent on your income, you'll still need (or want to have) coverage.  If you died today, how long could your wife continue her standard of living?  Any kids?  Are their colleges fully funded? 

So yeah, why do you think those policies were $15 or $10 a month?  They were only providing $150k, and only for 10 years, and for a couple who were likely healthy and 28 and 30 when they took them out.  I'd take that bet (assuming I could take a few hundred or thousand other similar bets to cover myself)!  Both of you make it to next year (which is extremely likely), that's $3k you'll never get back.  That may not seem like a whole lot of money, but what did it do for you?  And now you'll likely want to do it all again, and those policies will be even more expensive.

Also, if much of your "assets" are in retirement type funds, and you pass away at 38 (I'm assuming you're the 38 year old), and your wife is 40 - she'd be both taxed AND penalized to touch that money before age 59 1/2.

Ok, I'll address each question so there's a more complete picture.  First, I'm the 40yo.  She actually makes more at her job than I do at mine.  2 kids (8 and 3), a small college fund for each we only contributed to for 1 year (not currently contributing).  Fully fund Roth IRAs, fully fund HSA, 401K (8% +4% match), and she is a teacher with a pension.  And we have a decent number of rental properties that will be paid off before the Term Life policy expires.  We have yet to use any of the rental property income in our personal lives (all goes to paying off the loan/purchasing more).

Your 2nd paragraph actually sounds like you're arguing against purchasing the policies again.  Yes, we paid $3K for the 10 years of coverage (which is why I'm questioning buying this again - likely at 2 or 3 times the cost).  At the time, we were planning on having our mortgage paid off by now, but we purchased the investment properties instead.   

Yes we have retirement assets, but thats not really what I'm referring to.  More so the rentals (she could sell them and net 10+ years of my day job income, if I were to pass, or keep them and net more than my day job income annually).  I suppose I could do the same if she were to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With kids those ages, I can't see a situation in which you wouldn't still need coverage.  If either of you were to pass away, would the survivor go back to work the next day - or would there be a substantial period of time (due to the two kids of that age) that you would lose both incomes?

My second paragraph was in a way saying that maybe some permanent coverage would have been the better choice for both of you 10 years ago rather than just 10 year term which you'll likely want to replace with more expensive term next year.  It should have at least been considered, in my opinion.  (having said that, I fully understand that $15 and $10/m premiums are very hard to say no to).

I don't know anything about the rental real estate you're talking about, but what if one of you passed when the real estate market is in a downturn?  Think of your 3 streams of income right now as a 3-legged bar stool.  What would happen if one of those stream (stool legs) were to suddenly end?  What if a second one had to end for a period of time as well due to the circumstances?  Would those ROTHs still be fully funded each year?  What about the HSA and the 401(k).  Her pension down the road would go away.  Just saying lots of things would likely change if anything happened to any of those streams, much less two of them.

Edited by matttyl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, matttyl said:

With kids those ages, I can't see a situation in which you wouldn't still need coverage.  If either of you were to pass away, would the survivor go back to work the next day - or would there be a substantial period of time (due to the two kids of that age) that you would lose both incomes?

My second paragraph was in a way saying that maybe some permanent coverage would have been the better choice for both of you 10 years ago rather than just 10 year term which you'll likely want to replace with more expensive term next year.  It should have at least been considered, in my opinion.  (having said that, I fully understand that $15 and $10/m premiums are very hard to say no to).

I don't know anything about the rental real estate you're talking about, but what if one of you passed when the real estate market is in a downturn?  Think of your 3 streams of income right now as a 3-legged bar stool.  What would happen if one of those stream (stool legs) were to suddenly end?  What if a second one had to end for a period of time as well due to the circumstances?  Would those ROTHs still be fully funded each year?  What about the HSA and the 401(k).  Her pension down the road would go away.  Just saying lots of things would likely change if anything happened to any of those streams, much less two of them.

You're starting to sound a little like a salesman.  So can you give me a generic quote on 38yo female, 40yo male?  On whatever term and amount you think we should get?

 I do have life ins coverage worth about 2yrs salary through work (obviously thats only good as long as I'm there).  Not sure what she has through work.

Edited by Random

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Random said:

You're starting to sound a little like a salesman.  So can you give me a generic quote on 38yo female, 40yo male?  On whatever term and amount you think we should get?

 I do have life ins coverage worth about 2yrs salary through work (obviously thats only good as long as I'm there).  Not sure what she has through work.

Sorry, I try not to sound too much like a salesman, but it's what I do.  Please PM me with some details and we'll go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matttyl said:

Answered by someone else just above, but as long as someone is still dependent on your income, you'll still need (or want to have) coverage.  If you died today, how long could your wife continue her standard of living?  Any kids?  Are their colleges fully funded? 

So yeah, why do you think those policies were $15 or $10 a month?  They were only providing $150k, and only for 10 years, and for a couple who were likely healthy and 28 and 30 when they took them out.  I'd take that bet (assuming I could take a few hundred or thousand other similar bets to cover myself)!  Both of you make it to next year (which is extremely likely), that's $3k you'll never get back.  That may not seem like a whole lot of money, but what did it do for you?  And now you'll likely want to do it all again, and those policies will be even more expensive.

Also, if much of your "assets" are in retirement type funds, and you pass away at 38 (I'm assuming you're the 38 year old), and your wife is 40 - she'd be both taxed AND penalized to touch that money before age 59 1/2.

What about the premiums he paid for house insurance?  What did that get him since his house didn't burn down?

 

I have enjoyed the discussion about life insurance as I have looked at this and have consulted with a friend who looked into the wealth building path at one time.  There are absolutely benefits to both sides.  You seem to be slipping into salesman mode.  You can't ignore the insurance coverage side of the term policy.  There is peace of mind being insured in case something happened.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Sorry, I try not to sound too much like a salesman, but it's what I do.  Please PM me with some details and we'll go from there.

What details?  Probably not going to pm anything I wont post here.  A generic (range) is fine.

Edited by Random

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dino259 said:

What about the premiums he paid for house insurance?  What did that get him since his house didn't burn down?

I have enjoyed the discussion about life insurance as I have looked at this and have consulted with a friend who looked into the wealth building path at one time.  There are absolutely benefits to both sides.  You seem to be slipping into salesman mode.  You can't ignore the insurance coverage side of the term policy.  There is peace of mind being insured in case something happened.

Well of course there is, and a huge one.  Again, I try not to slip into salesman mode too much, but as I said before I'm just a believer in permanent coverage.  It's not just homeowners insurance that does that - it's every type of insurance, other than permanent (whole) life insurance.  Health insurance when you don't get sick?  Money lost as well.  I just like the idea of being able to call the carrier up in 10 or 20 years after I don't die and ask for my money back.  Or have the ability to continue the coverage at the exact same unchanged rate, there is value to that as well.

ETA - for comparison, a 30 year old (his age when he got his current policy) could have had a really, really nice whole life policy of 150k for ~1,500 a year.  10 years into the deal (where we are now), he'd have 13,575 of cash value.  So, would it have been worth it for him to have spent an extra 13,200 in premium to have 13,575 of cash today (we'll call that a wash), and have the ability to continue with 150k of coverage indefinitely for the same 1,500 a year?  Lets say he can get another 10 year term for the same ~180 a year he's paying now - in 10 more years he'd have put in 3,600 into that policy and have nothing to show for it then other than the coverage he's had the past 20 years.  The whole life policy at that point has needed exactly 30,000 of premium (26,400 more than the term) and it would have 41,400 of cash value (which is exactly 4.5% on the difference, non-taxable), and a death benefit of over 180k.  It would also have that coverage continuing at age 51 without him having to buy yet another term policy at that time should he need to, at whatever health level he happens to be then.

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Random said:

What details?  Probably not going to pm anything I wont post here.  A generic (range) is fine.

Was going to ask about health related stuff.  I really hate to just generically quote "best health rating" as when we look at the "cheapo term carriers" only like 10% of applications get that rating.  Everyone thinks they are fully health with zero issues, but that's honestly rarely the case.  The last two really big applications I submitted, the folks said there was no reason they wouldn't get the best class (both mid 60's) - both were declined (pending additional information/testing/screening). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matttyl said:

Was going to ask about health related stuff.  I really hate to just generically quote "best health rating" as when we look at the "cheapo term carriers" only like 10% of applications get that rating.  Everyone thinks they are fully health with zero issues, but that's honestly rarely the case.  The last two really big applications I submitted, the folks said there was no reason they wouldn't get the best class (both mid 60's) - both were declined (pending additional information/testing/screening). 

Then go with the next rating that most people get approved for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Random said:

Then go with the next rating that most people get approved for.

Just something really, really quick.  I quoted $250k for each of you, and did so at "select preferred non tobacco" (or some similar equivalent from different carriers).  I did this for two reason - 1) most carriers have a breakpoint there and 250k may actually cost the same or less than 200k, and 2) anyone with two kids of those ages really should have twice that, especially an FBG.  I also did 20 year terms, which aren't that much more than 10 year for folks of your age as neither 10 or 20 years gets you anywhere close to average life expectancy for semi-healthy folks.

For you, 250k of 20 year term would be 22-25/m (a few carriers fell in that range).  She would be in the 18-21/m range.  These are also based out of my state of Virginia, so your state could be slightly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Just something really, really quick.  I quoted $250k for each of you, and did so at "select preferred non tobacco" (or some similar equivalent from different carriers).  I did this for two reason - 1) most carriers have a breakpoint there and 250k may actually cost the same or less than 200k, and 2) anyone with two kids of those ages really should have twice that, especially an FBG.  I also did 20 year terms, which aren't that much more than 10 year for folks of your age as neither 10 or 20 years gets you anywhere close to average life expectancy for semi-healthy folks.

For you, 250k of 20 year term would be 22-25/m (a few carriers fell in that range).  She would be in the 18-21/m range.  These are also based out of my state of Virginia, so your state could be slightly different.

Thank you.  250K seems like plenty (neither of us are very high income earners).  20-25/mo seems very reasonable as well.  Again, thanks for running those numbers.  I'll touch base with my ins guy in the hopes we are close to this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Random said:

Thank you.  250K seems like plenty (neither of us are very high income earners).  20-25/mo seems very reasonable as well.  Again, thanks for running those numbers.  I'll touch base with my ins guy in the hopes we are close to this.

No problem.  I'd just hate for you to think that 150 or 200k was all that's "needed", when a break point at 250k might not be that much more if anything each month.  Let me know if you have any other questions, happy to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@matttylInsurance and taxes are my two big blinds spots in personal finance.

So, in as much as life insurance goes. When an employer offers basic life insurance for free (I think it is a year's worth of salary) and then offers more that you pay for (multiplier of salary). In general, is this a good, bad or neutral thing? I mean, are you getting a discount (generally speaking) versus contacting an agent and getting a policy on your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chadstroma said:

@matttylInsurance and taxes are my two big blinds spots in personal finance.

So, in as much as life insurance goes. When an employer offers basic life insurance for free (I think it is a year's worth of salary) and then offers more that you pay for (multiplier of salary). In general, is this a good, bad or neutral thing? I mean, are you getting a discount (generally speaking) versus contacting an agent and getting a policy on your own?

No, not at all.  Generally, those policies are "guaranteed issue" - meaning that anyone working for that company can get it without answering any medical questions.  What happens is all the unhealthy folks flock right to it.  Now, the company may pay a portion of that additional charge, but most don't.  If you're healthy, young, and a non-smoker, you can typically do much better on your own.  Moreover, you don't have to worry about losing the coverage because you change jobs or the company cuts back on benefits.

Think of it like auto insurance - some company out there says that will give coverage to anyone without asking about driving record or anything.  All the folks with DUIs and multiple tickets will flock right to it.  If you've got a decent driving record, you can do much better shopping for yourself.  Same idea here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matttyl said:

No, not at all.  Generally, those policies are "guaranteed issue" - meaning that anyone working for that company can get it without answering any medical questions.  What happens is all the unhealthy folks flock right to it.  Now, the company may pay a portion of that additional charge, but most don't.  If you're healthy, young, and a non-smoker, you can typically do much better on your own.  Moreover, you don't have to worry about losing the coverage because you change jobs or the company cuts back on benefits.

Think of it like auto insurance - some company out there says that will give coverage to anyone without asking about driving record or anything.  All the folks with DUIs and multiple tickets will flock right to it.  If you've got a decent driving record, you can do much better shopping for yourself.  Same idea here.

Makes absolute sense.

What about the accident/dismemberment offered through the company as well? You wouldn't have the same dynamic as above. Is that a good idea? Cost advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chadstroma said:

Makes absolute sense.

What about the accident/dismemberment offered through the company as well? You wouldn't have the same dynamic as above. Is that a good idea? Cost advantage?

You mean disability insurance?  Or some AFLEC type thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, matttyl said:

No, not at all.  Generally, those policies are "guaranteed issue" - meaning that anyone working for that company can get it without answering any medical questions.  What happens is all the unhealthy folks flock right to it.  Now, the company may pay a portion of that additional charge, but most don't.  If you're healthy, young, and a non-smoker, you can typically do much better on your own.  Moreover, you don't have to worry about losing the coverage because you change jobs or the company cuts back on benefits.

Think of it like auto insurance - some company out there says that will give coverage to anyone without asking about driving record or anything.  All the folks with DUIs and multiple tickets will flock right to it.  If you've got a decent driving record, you can do much better shopping for yourself.  Same idea here.

It still can't hurt to check.  My company offers incredible rates on life insurance.  I have some through them and some through a private term policy I got through Met Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tiger Fan said:

It still can't hurt to check.  My company offers incredible rates on life insurance.  I have some through them and some through a private term policy I got through Met Life.

Can depend on the company (you work for) and the carriers offering the plans.  If you're young, and you work for a young company (average age of employee) the rates can be very low.  Keep in mind, though, that the majority of those plans have "age banded" life rates - means that you (making up numbers here) might be paying $10 a month for an extra x2 salary addition at age 30, but at age 40 it could be $30 a month, and at age 50 $60 a month.  The rates aren't "locked in" like they would be for the duration of a term policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, matttyl said:

You mean disability insurance?  Or some AFLEC type thing?

Accidential Death and Dismemberment Insurance. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chadstroma said:

Accidential Death and Dismemberment Insurance. :shrug:

Depends on the rates - but if you already have life insurance of an appropriate amount (which pays no matter how you pass away), why buy this that would only pay if you pass away in a very specific way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Depends on the rates - but if you already have life insurance of an appropriate amount (which pays no matter how you pass away), why buy this that would only pay if you pass away in a very specific way?

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, matttyl said:

You mean disability insurance?  Or some AFLEC type thing?

Like Ben, so we'd become Batman? :excited: 

or Bruce Wayne which sounds like more fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that the cost is less than life insurance and then it also has the extra protection of being a supplement to long term disability insurance in that if I lost an arm- I would get paid out.

Or something. :shrug:

Like I said.... insurance and taxes are blind spots for me. I really don't know and haven't put the time/effort into knowing. As I get older (hitting 40 next year) I have started (key there is started... basically, I had the thought "Hey, I need to learn more about insurance and get some") to think about insurance. Other than that.... I don't know.

I also have to spend time looking for new home/auto coverage too. Was not happy with Allstate with my major accident a couple of years ago and I am sure I can get less expensive coverage as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, matttyl said:

Depends on the rates - but if you already have life insurance of an appropriate amount (which pays no matter how you pass away), why buy this that would only pay if you pass away in a very specific way?

Dark question, but does your family still collect life insurance if you kill yourself?  I always thought that wasn't the case

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.